Climate change is mostly a physics problem that happened due to massive industrialisation in the last two centuries, but its solution is very much political. China (~25%), the US (~12%), the EU (~6–7%), and India (~7%) together produce around half of global carbon emissions. The world has enough land and technology to produce clean energy (for example, theoretically 1 France-sized area covered with high-efficiency solar could meet global electricity needs), so energy potential is not the real problem. The challenge is infrastructure, speed, and cost. About 32% of the world’s land is used for agriculture, and ~70% of that agricultural land is used for animals we eat (grazing + animal feed crops). This makes meat production very inefficient for emissions and land use. We either need to reduce meat consumption or produce meat with better methods (like lab-grown meat). So what is the problem? What is the urgency in this? Maybe we can solve this slowly? At NASA, Princeton, Stanford, and other major institutions, climate scientists are using supercomputers to model the climate system. These models help us identify potential irreversible tipping points, so we know where to focus action first. For example, once many glaciers melt, they will not return for centuries to millennia, even if we later try to fix the climate. In practical terms, once they are gone, they are gone for a very long time. Showing graphs, charts, and diagrams to authorities does not automatically lead to change. Real change requires political interventions such as carbon taxing. But carbon taxes are tricky, because if you make a product using components that are very carbon-intensive, then you are not actually solving the issue. For example, if you build an EV battery but the mining and manufacturing process causes pollution in another country, and then you label yourself as green, that is still a problem. We have only one atmosphere, and you cannot hide carbon from the Earth. At the beginning of 2020, scientists estimated that we could only emit about 500 gigatons of CO₂ more before there is a 50% chance of global warming rising above the dangerous limit of 1.5°C. At the current global emission rate of about 40 Gt CO₂ per year, this budget could be used up in roughly the next 10 years, meaning the window to avoid long-term irreversible climate changes is very short. Climate change won’t impact the US, Europe, China, and Russia as severely in the next 30 years as they have stronger infrastructure and resources to adapt, so they may not need to migrate or adjust too much. But for India, things will become very challenging much sooner. Due to our geography with extreme heat, monsoon dependence, long coastlines, and Himalayan glaciers, we will be more affected. We only have around the next 10 years to prepare such a large population, which is very difficult logistically and we cannot force countries that have more time than India and Africa to act rapidly.
First post related to rural India after covering all major structural issues of urban India. Climate change has already arrived. We have only 10 years, while developed countries have around 30 years before they see the full impact.
Peter Gerald... Thanks... "The domain of AGROBIOGENICS aligns with the Carbon Cycle, and involves the whole gamut of living and non-living material systems that begin with Renewable Vegetation Resources (RVR). These primary systems are processed, without increasing the Carbon footprint, and without creating environmental degradation. The net processes and operations will pass through a ZERO-WASTE ZERO-CARBON BUSINESS-MODEL (ZW-ZC-BM), resulting in a Closed-Loop operation— The “RECYCLE/ REUSE/ REDESIGN/ RE-ENGINEER (R^4)” domain."
Hariharan PV70% of agriculture land is used for animals we eat (ruminant animals) which produces a big chunk of methane. Can agrobiogenics solve this issue ? 30% of global freshwater is used for such animals, what can we do with that ?
Hariharan PVafter reading this, I understood that "AgroBiogenics" is more about clean energy generation which can be done by solar and within area equivalent of France, we can generate almost clean energy for entire planet, but for distribution and transmission there are no method for it. This is what I wrote in the post already. Clean energy creation is not the bigger problem the bigger problem is "clean energy transmission".
Energy is a businessYash Pratap. Till the time everyone is generating energy they need, themselves, people who are generating will adopt the most cost efficient way in order to maximise their profits, even if that means polluting the environment. Assuming majority population will switch to lab grown meat or become vegetarians when the above itself is not possible, where the decision has to be made by a few businessmen in the energy business, is a far shot. We also don't know the after effects of what will happen if everyone becomes vegetarian. That's another study that needs to happen.
It's a complex topic, India and other countries need energy to develop. This amount of energy can further damage climate, but it is worth spending for good reasons. Unfortunately the green transition is not close, and several scenarios of climate impact can be dramatic. Adaptation is key to managing the future
Generative AI can support carbon taxation by analysing complex supply chains, identifying hidden emissions, and improving tracking and compliance. This makes carbon pricing more transparent and fair, but political action is still necessary to implement the policies.
Yash Pratap
Author
Climate change has already arrived.
We have only 10 years, while developed countries have around 30 years before they see the full impact.
Yash Pratap
Author
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/yashp2411_prashant-kishor-is-the-only-person-who-has-activity-7390075818758156288-hHjz?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=android_app&rcm=ACoAACxrlNsBn9c2b7b2lZ8UK2ckDiW-YTjaB0I&utm_campaign=copy_link
Prashant Kishor is the only person who has done proper ground-level work and data collection in Bihar, but I have a problem with his solutions when it comes to poverty. In the 1990s, Ethiopia had a… | Yash Pratap | 56 comments
Prashant Kishor is the only person who has done proper ground-level work and data collection in Bihar, but I have a problem with his solutions when it comes to poverty. In the 1990s, Ethiopia had a Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of 7. The Ethiopian...
Yash Pratap
Author
Peter Gerald
• 1st
Hariharan PV
• Following
Yash Pratap
Author
30% of global freshwater is used for such animals, what can we do with that ?
Hariharan PV
• Following
1. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hariharanpv_agrobiogenics-technology-creating-a-new-activity-7388785319170461696--gvX
2. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hariharanpv_abt-abtintegratedbiorefinery-agropolymerindustrycomplex-activity-7381504850167173120-PxZh
3. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hariharanpv_sustainability-circulareconomy-biofiber-activity-7367035773931438083-IyW-
4. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hariharanpv_renewablevegetationresources-rvr-rvrcarbon-activity-7361972427477733376-nC8e
5. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hariharanpv_abt-abct-at-activity-7360116442177966082-fTHx
6. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hariharanpv_carbonrevolution-bananaeconomy-bananaplantation-activity-7359025511576064000-eUic
AGROBIOGENICS TECHNOLOGY_ Creating A New World Order | Hariharan PV
A NEW #CIVILIZATION WITHOUT FOSSIL OIL, NO #MINING, NO #SMELTING, AND NO #ENVIRONMENTALDEGRADATION— Through Zero-Waste Zero-Carbon Business-Model (ZW-ZC-BM) ―――― LET US MAKE INDIA A TOP CLEAN-TECH NATION, TOGETHER, IN UNISON—PVH—Motto ――――...
Yash Pratap
Author
Hariharan PV
• Following
Yash Pratap
Author
Clean energy creation is not the bigger problem the bigger problem is "clean energy transmission".
Yash Pratap
Author
Prateek Rational Michelangelo Puliga
Peter Gerald
• 1st
Till the time everyone is generating energy they need, themselves, people who are generating will adopt the most cost efficient way in order to maximise their profits, even if that means polluting the environment.
Assuming majority population will switch to lab grown meat or become vegetarians when the above itself is not possible, where the decision has to be made by a few businessmen in the energy business, is a far shot.
We also don't know the after effects of what will happen if everyone becomes vegetarian. That's another study that needs to happen.
Yash Pratap
Author
That's what I wrote already in the post.
Michelangelo Puliga
• 1st
Finollama